Re: Snowflake on Oracle

>> All the Postgres stories about vacuuming apply to YB.

Franck Pachot
<https://twitter.com/FranckPachot>
_at_FranckPachot
<https://twitter.com/FranckPachot>
·
Apr 9 <https://twitter.com/FranckPachot/status/1645162272019316741> Replying to
_at_kylelf_ <https://twitter.com/kylelf_> _at_PostgreSQL <https://twitter.com/PostgreSQL> and
_at_Yugabyte <https://twitter.com/Yugabyte> _at_Yugabyte <https://twitter.com/Yugabyte> has no vacuum and no undo. The LSM-Tree compaction gets gids of expired MVCC versions at the storage level. No locks. More like an online defrag of files

[image: image.png]

On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 8:54 AM Mladen Gogala <gogala.mladen_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> On 4/17/23 00:14, Clay Jackson (Clay.Jackson) wrote:
>
> I would advise EXTREME caution here – while I only know enough about
> Yugabyte and Snowflake to be dangerous, I DO know that Snowflake and
> yugabyteDB store data VERY differently
>
> Of course they do. YB is a Postgres compatible OLTP database which stores
> rows in the table. All the Postgres stories about vacuuming apply to YB.
> Snowflake, on the other hand, is a columnar DW database. They are very
> different animals.
>
> --
> Mladen Gogala
> Database Consultant
> Tel: (347) 321-1217https://dbwhisperer.wordpress.com
>
>

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l





image/png attachment: image.png